SongRune wrote: » @Strevi, you have to be careful with this. If you use relics, you have to make sure the Tracker ones are abundant. If you use votes, you have to be sure they can't be manipulated by rival guilds. Making it a guild perk means it sorts "people who use trackers" and "people who don't" cleanly based on their choice of association with like-minded people, preventing any "clash of expectations" toxicity while keeping it available to all who want it (and are willing to spend a nominal amount on it). Making it something that a hostile guild or node can prevent you from having, or take away from you means that the first guild to have and hold one gets an advantage.
SongRune wrote: » The strong get stronger. And the "losing rival guild" can't accept this. There's now a strong incentive to write an out-of-game tracker. The very thing that the proposed system is partly intended to prevent by de-incentivizing. This tracker won't have any such "anti-toxicity" limitations on it (because why would anyone do the extra work to add them?), and once it's made, it'll be out there.
SongRune wrote: » If you want to disincentivize external trackers, and keep the "anti-toxicity" feature of keeping trackers to groups of people who have chosen, as a group, to use them, you shouldn't add serious barriers beyond that choice of whether to participate. The more you do, the less you've disincentivized someone just making an external one, and if you've made access to it limited and competitive? You went from disincentivizing the creation of an external tracker to practically requiring it. And once it's done, it's done. That tracker's out there and available forever.
SongRune wrote: » The key to avoiding "clash of expectations" toxicity with trackers is exactly the "guild perk" compromise offered. Give it a low barrier to entry so no-one bothers to bypass it, but make it a communal choice for each individual player group so that there's an automatic self-selection so players who want to play that way, and those that don't, don't automatically mix. It's the same reason you can't make it a node choice. Beyond limited node citizenship making it immediately competitive, you don't get the social self-selection effect from that because "a node" isn't an individual play-group of like-minded players, even if its a "shared environment" community, with all the related incentives. Like most problems in life, you have to solve it on the right level, or you haven't solved anything at all.
Noaani wrote: » Sapiverenus wrote: » "name one entertainment. . ." Working out That isn't entertainment. Sure, it is a thing you can enjoy, but I thoroughly enjoy my job. However, my job is not entertainment.
Sapiverenus wrote: » "name one entertainment. . ." Working out
Noaani wrote: Video game genres aren't real Agreed. They are abstract constructs. However, they are useful abstract constructs. If we all talk about MMORPG's, then we all know exactly what type of game it is we are talking about. Well, mostly. There are a few opinions as to what makes an MMO an MMO - but they are minor, for the most part.
Video game genres aren't real
Noaani wrote: What is sure though, is that no one that is participating in a discussion about an MMO is going to mistake that discussion for something like a racing game, or a colony builder. How about adding Guitaroo mechanic for Lute/Strum Bard --> you move the joystick and hit the strum button and you play the song and do something impactful. That appeals to a different audience and there are 7 other Archetypes to play. I mean, many MMO's already have classes based on rhythm. Instead of jumping in to a long established game genre with all these ideas, why don't you go out and actually learn a bit about that genre first?
How about adding Guitaroo mechanic for Lute/Strum Bard --> you move the joystick and hit the strum button and you play the song and do something impactful. That appeals to a different audience and there are 7 other Archetypes to play.
Noaani wrote: I mean, last time I pointed out the inherent flaws in a suggestion you had refused to do even basic research in to (making a suggestion for a combat tracker replacement without actually knowing what a combat tracker is really used for) you got all pissy over it. Why would I then point out the inherent flaws in your new suggestion that have been known to people in the MMO community for that two decade time period? If you want people to get involved in discussion on ideas you have, you need to be able to take criticism well - if you can't, people will just ignore your suggestions, much as I did last time you bought up the above game.
Noaani wrote: I guess what makes the most sense is that you want a game that only suits yourself and people a lot like you. If by "like me" you mean MMO players that are not currently playing an MMO - of whom there are several million of us - then yeah. Fun fact, that is also the base target audience Intrepid has for Ashes. If someone's attitude towards games is I do not play many games and they do not interest me. then that person should not expect any games to ever be made to suit them. I mean, if you were a game developer and you had the choice of developing a game for someone that loves the genre you want to make a game for - and especially for a number of the specific games you have taken as inspiration - or someone that just doesn't like games at all, which one would you develop you game for? If this - doing nothing but sitting in my chair is often more interesting to me. Is your honest opinion on computer games, then I really quite strongly suggest spending your time on things like this instead. You'll be far happier spending time on what you enjoy rather than - bizarrely - talking about a thing you do not enjoy.
I guess what makes the most sense is that you want a game that only suits yourself and people a lot like you.
I do not play many games and they do not interest me.
doing nothing but sitting in my chair is often more interesting to me.
Strevi wrote: » Regarding: "Making it something that a hostile guild or node can prevent you from having, or take away from you means that the first guild to have and hold one gets an advantage" No, it gets only the option to use the tracker and possibly to defeat stronger versions of bosses. The game is in control of how difficult the content will be and what the boss drops.
Strevi wrote: » SongRune wrote: » If you want to disincentivize external trackers, and keep the "anti-toxicity" feature of keeping trackers to groups of people who have chosen, as a group, to use them, you shouldn't add serious barriers beyond that choice of whether to participate. The more you do, the less you've disincentivized someone just making an external one, and if you've made access to it limited and competitive? You went from disincentivizing the creation of an external tracker to practically requiring it. And once it's done, it's done. That tracker's out there and available forever. So you say that trackers will still be created. If Intrepid Studios decide to add a tracker as I suggested, it means that has already accepted it's use. It is not about me wanting to be used it or to prevent it's use. If IS does that step, then it will have less concern that some players who are not good enough to obtain the perk still want it and will switch to external tools. External tools can still be detected more or less and if they are running on the same PC, they also reduce the performance.
Strevi wrote: » Regarding the toxicity or the "anti-toxicity" of the tool I am not convinced. This is a relative thing and it is up to IS to decide what kind of audience to attract to the game. For now they want the anti-tracker people. I think toxicity is a player attitude caused by lack of empathy, greed, selfishness...
Strevi wrote: » But IS can detect the use of trackers without even checking for external tools. Just like they observe if a player is a bot or not, the play-style pattern, they can detect if a team works as if has a tracker or not.
Strevi wrote: » If IS adds the option to have both tracker and no tracker in the game and it makes clear that both categories will get similar drops, no matter how difficult the boss was for the tracker team, then there will be less envy between the two categories.
Strevi wrote: » SongRune wrote: » The key to avoiding "clash of expectations" toxicity with trackers is exactly the "guild perk" compromise offered. Give it a low barrier to entry so no-one bothers to bypass it, but make it a communal choice for each individual player group so that there's an automatic self-selection so players who want to play that way, and those that don't, don't automatically mix. It's the same reason you can't make it a node choice. Beyond limited node citizenship making it immediately competitive, you don't get the social self-selection effect from that because "a node" isn't an individual play-group of like-minded players, even if its a "shared environment" community, with all the related incentives. Like most problems in life, you have to solve it on the right level, or you haven't solved anything at all. I don't like the guild perk because that is the decision of the guild leader. He may want to decide everything in his guild but this option specifically I want to not be in his power. I am as inflexible as Steven, regarding this. I'll not change my mind. I want it to be a vote of players, as many as a node has. The players in a node have to cooperate and create a mini community on the bigger map. That is also the reason why the economy is broken down and there are no global auction houses. The node and the citizens are more important than the guilds.
Strevi wrote: » [Regarding " "a node" isn't an individual play-group of like-minded players" that is true, at least until they cast this vote. Then they have to move if they cannot accept the vote outcome. That happens in real life too. Also after a siege, if they lose their home, they'll have to chose a better one. I go with the assumption that sieges will happen often enough. Those who are very worried about this DPS vote they can ask in advance local guilds and players what their opinion is, when the server is launched and try to chose from the beginning. 3 months after the release, which node has what setting will be a known thing. Regarding what happens when players with and without DPS meters mix in a raid, I have not thought much about this. But all should be aware who has which option. If they want to switch temporarily, then what happens is up to be discussed.
And everything I mentioned just now is less of a time waster than MMOs.
This isn't about convenience for conversation it's about shutting down the conversation because you don't want to hear about anything that doesn't fit the game formula you want.
you still clearly have no respect for
BECAUSE all that matters is getting the pristine formulaic MMO you NEED and only suits YOU and People VERY MUCH ALIKE.
Most people do not play video games.
SongRune wrote: » Strevi wrote: » But IS can detect the use of trackers without even checking for external tools. Just like they observe if a player is a bot or not, the play-style pattern, they can detect if a team works as if has a tracker or not. Having personally worked on this sort of bad-player detection, I don't see how. Something that might be worth reiterating is that a lot of the 'pro-tracker' team here doesn't care that much about real-time data. Looking over the recordings/logs for efficient post-mortem analysis is a large part of what matters. There's literally no 'during the fight' behavior to detect. The only 'tell' of a "using trackers" group, is that they manage to improve their strategies and performance more quickly (i.e. "in fewer attempts at the content") than a "not using trackers" group, for the same content. But that type of natural variation exists even without trackers. There are absolutely savants who can just do it all in their head, even at the highest levels. (They're the ones that others use trackers to 'get on the same level as'.) Do you ban them too?
Noaani wrote: » I think the topic is, if those who get the drops are favored by using external tools. This may be true, but those tools will exist regardless of what Intrepid do in regards to this thread. They will also not be against any ToS or EULA. If you want to be a guild that gets those drops, you will have those tools.
I think the topic is, if those who get the drops are favored by using external tools.
The difficulty of PvE content, such as raids and dungeons will adapt based on the performance of the raid or group against previous bosses in that encounter.[17]
SongRune wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Regarding: "Making it something that a hostile guild or node can prevent you from having, or take away from you means that the first guild to have and hold one gets an advantage" No, it gets only the option to use the tracker and possibly to defeat stronger versions of bosses. The game is in control of how difficult the content will be and what the boss drops. My point is this: If the tracker helps you optimize your performance and defeat stronger content more efficiently, then you get the rewards (which presumably provide progression) of the stronger content, and those who do not have access to it do so either slower, or not at all. You are right.Difficulty: The game does decide how difficult the content is. In fact, there is one thing that some of the posters here occasionally remind us of: If the raids are too easy to benefit from (not 'need', just benefit from) a tracker, then... yeah, it won't matter. But because groups benefit from trackers on any raid that pushes their personal limits, all this means is that no raid will push most people's limits and the game will have unengaging high-end PvE.Drops: If the drops make you stronger than you otherwise could have been, then they have the potential to make you stronger than your rival guild that you somehow managed to deny a tracker to. If no drops from difficult raid content make you stronger than you otherwise would have been... then yeah, the competitive disadvantage won't snowball. But I feel like a lot of players will complain that they don't get "meaningful" rewards from high-end raids.
SongRune wrote: » Strevi wrote: » SongRune wrote: » If you want to disincentivize external trackers, and keep the "anti-toxicity" feature of keeping trackers to groups of people who have chosen, as a group, to use them, you shouldn't add serious barriers beyond that choice of whether to participate. The more you do, the less you've disincentivized someone just making an external one, and if you've made access to it limited and competitive? You went from disincentivizing the creation of an external tracker to practically requiring it. And once it's done, it's done. That tracker's out there and available forever. So you say that trackers will still be created. If Intrepid Studios decide to add a tracker as I suggested, it means that has already accepted it's use. It is not about me wanting to be used it or to prevent it's use. If IS does that step, then it will have less concern that some players who are not good enough to obtain the perk still want it and will switch to external tools. External tools can still be detected more or less and if they are running on the same PC, they also reduce the performance. As I read through your post a second time, I think that I don't understand what your goal is. You do not want to prevent the use of trackers, but you do want to limit them and tie them to in-game progression mechanics. What is the benefit that you see to doing this? What is the purpose of denying access to a built-in tracker to most or even many players? Perhaps this hinges on something else: Detection. That is the trick, isn't it? As has been brought up here before, trackers can be run on another computer just as easily. You'd have to ban streaming and recording to ensure it's even theoretically possible to detect them. As such, I'm not sure what this argument actually gets you? You still have tracker use by people you 'didn't intend'. At best, you have made it somewhat pay to win. (i.e. own a second computer, or perhaps in the future 'a phone')
SongRune wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Regarding the toxicity or the "anti-toxicity" of the tool I am not convinced. This is a relative thing and it is up to IS to decide what kind of audience to attract to the game. For now they want the anti-tracker people. I think toxicity is a player attitude caused by lack of empathy, greed, selfishness... I largely agree. Toxicity is caused by these things (which do not relate to trackers), but I believe that it can also be caused by clashing expectations. If Player A wants to go max optimization and try to clear content, even if it means doing certain forms of nonsense, and Player B wants to do their own thing, and figure out how to perfect themselves without necessarily 'cheesing things' or whatever, there will be problems when the two are in the same party, even if neither style is innately wrong. The purpose of the 'guild trackers' compromise concept is to prevent this sort of "mixing oil and water" where trackers are concerned. If you don't believe that said "mixing oil and water" style effect results in toxicity, then it makes sense that you don't see a point to the offered compromise, since it implies that you are trying to solve a different problem than it is designed to. But that brings me back to not understanding why you feel that tracker access should be limited at all. Even more specifically however, why nodes? Assigning it to nodes ties together the game experiences of players who may, in serious possibility, never directly play together or join the same party, even if they serve the interests of the same region or city independently.
Mag7spy wrote: » Guild tracker idea is stupid, it just paves the way for people to use third party trackers. It is simple manipulation and that is why he brought it up. Then he will simply say it cant be TOS to use third party trackers since they are already in game. Don't trust a word Noaani says look at his god damn profile picture.
Xeeg wrote: » My opinion is...
Xeeg wrote: » My opinion is that if you can't stop it, can't detect it, and it gives the player an advantage, then you should implement it as a feature. If you don't want players to know what hps something has, or know what actual dps they are doing, then you need to limit information sent to the client from the server. This means no damage numbers or combat log. A lot of people wont like this because you essentially will never get feedback on how you are performing, or what build or attack order is actually doing more damage. I'm not a game designer so i don't really know the exact limitations but I would assume that there are only a few bits of information that are actually required to be send between server and client for gameplay. Again this might not be a practical solution, but if you want to make this game feature unhackable you need to do something like this. Server to client: Tell them when they have been hit and how much damage they have received, to update health bars. Tell them whether or not their attacks hit the hitbox, to update animation frames regarding hits. Client to server: Tell the server what actions the player has taken, do the hit and damage calcs server side. The more information the server sends to the client, the more open the game is to 3rd party apps intercepting that information and creating an addon out of it.
Natasha wrote: » Why are you all still here?
Sapiverenus wrote: » Cause noaani is going to reply to everyone
